.png){kind=logo}
open access
메뉴
본 연구는 두 제품이 지니는 동등속성(Common Attribute)에 초점을 두었다. 동등속성이란 두 제품이 공통적으로 지니면서도 그 수준까지 동등한 속성을 의미한다. 전통적 관점에서 동등속성은 소비자의 선택에 영향을 미칠 수 없다는 견해가 지배적이었으나 최근 연구들은 동등 속성도 소비자의 선호와 선택에 영향을 미칠 수 있음을 증명하였으며 기대불일치라는 기제를 통해 동등속성의 효과를 검증하였다. 본 연구는 이러한 결과를 더욱 확장하여 기대불일치의 방향성에 따른 동등속성의 효과를 살펴보았다. 구체적으로, 제품에는 구매에 결정적인 역할을 하는 결정속성이 존재하는데, 결정속성과의 관계에 따라서 기대불일치가 다른 방향으로 나타날 수 있다. 두 제품의 비교 상황에서, 소비자들은 결정속성과 공변적인 관계에 있는 속성에 대해 결정속성에서 우월한 대안이 이 역시 비교적 우월할 것이라는 기대가 존재하지만, 공변적 속성이 동등속성으로 주어질 경우 이에 대한 기대의 불일치가 일어나며 따라서 우월한 대안의 선택률이 낮아질 수 있다. 마찬가지 이유로 상보적 속성이 동등속성으로 주어질 경우 우월한 대안의 선택률이 높아질 수 있다. 이를 검증하기 위해 동등속성의 유형을 달리 제시함으로써 제품 선택률의 변화를 확인하였으며 동등성을 제시하지 않는 경우에 비해 유의미한 차이가 발생함을 교차분석을 통해 확인할 수 있었다. 또한, 속성 간에 상관관계가 존재할 것이라는 소비자의 기대를 억제함으로써 이러한 효과가 사라짐을 확인할 수 있었다. 본 논문의 결과는 제품에 대한 소비자의 선택을 유도해야 하는 마케터의 입장에서 유용한 전략적 단서를 제시해줄 수 있으며, 동등 속성을 활용할 때 각 속성 간의 관계에 대한 소비자의 지각을 활용하여 어떠한 속성을 제시해야 할지를 제안해줄 수 있다. 또한, 동등속성이 선택률에 미치는 효과의 방향성을 속성 간 관계에 기반하여 확인했다는 점에서 이론적 함의점이 존재한다.
This research focused on the common attribute of two products. Common attribute is a word for attribute that belongs to both products which also are identical in their level. Traditional view of common attribute was that it cannot influence choice. However, recent studies have proved that common attribute could, in fact, influence consumer’s choice through expectation disconfirmation. Current research attempts to broaden this result and find robustness. For this, current research has examined the effect of common attribute according to the direction of expectation-disconfirmation. Particularly, each product contains a determinant attribute which plays the biggest role on consumer’s purchase. If an attribute that is covariant with the determinant attribute appears to be the same, because consumers expect the alternative with higher determinant attribute to be better on covariant attribute, this will bring negative expectation-disconfirmation. On the other hand, if an attribute that is complementary to the determinant attribute appears to be common, this will deliver positive expectation-disconfirmation. This direction of expectation disconfirmation can predict the change of preferences. To testify this effect, we presented different types of common attribute to participants and examined their choice among two products. The result of chi-square test indicated there are significant difference according to the type of common attribute. Also, it was able to observe decrease in the effect of common attribute when expectations consumers held were aggregated through messages. Result of this paper can be useful for marketers who tries to establish strategies to promote their products. This result indicates that not only unique attributes, but also common attributes can play a role of increasing choice share. Additionally, this result shows that which kind of attributes should be used as common attribute. This result also has theoretical implications in that it showed context effect and expectation-disconfirmation played a role in attribute domain.
하영원, 안희경 (2003). 비핵심적 공통 속성이 소비자의 선호에 미치는 영향. 마케팅연구, 18(4), 23-45.
Bearden, W. O., & Teel, J. E. (1983). Selected determinants of consumer satisfaction and complaint reports. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(1), 21-28.
Bettman, J. R., Capon, N., & Lutz, R. J. (1975a). Cognitive algebra in multi-attribute attitude models. Journal of Marketing Research, 12(2), 151-164.
Bettman, J. R., Capon, N., & Lutz, R. J. (1975b). Multiattribute measurement models and multiattribute attitude theory: A test of construct validity. Journal of Consumer Research, 1(4), 1-15.
Bolton, R. N., & Drew, J. H. (1991). A multistage model of customers' assessments of service quality and value. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 375-384.
Chernev, A. (1997). The effect of common features on brand choice: Moderating role of attribute importance. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(4), 304-311.
Chernev, A. (2001). The impact of common features on consumer preferences: A case of confirmatory reasoning. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 475-488.
Chernev, A., & Carpenter, G. S. (2001). The role of market efficiency intuitions in consumer choice: A case of compensatory inferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(3), 349-361.
Chernev, A. (2007). Jack of all trades or master of one? Product differentiation and compensatory reasoning in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 430-444.
Chernev, A., & Hamilton, R. (2008). Compensatory reasoning in choice. The Social Psychology of Consumer Behavior, Frontiers of Social Psychology, 131-47.
Dick, A., Chakravarti, D., & Biehal, G. (1990). Memory-based inferences during consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(1), 82-93.
Du, P., & MacDonald, E. F. (2015). Products' Shared Visual Features Do Not Cancel in Consumer Decisions. Journal of Mechanical Design, 137(7), 071409.
Evangelidis, I., & Van Osselaer, S. M. (2018). Points of (Dis) parity: Expectation Disconfirmation from Common Attributes in Consumer Choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 55(1), 1-13.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research.
Ford, G. T., & Smith, R. A. (1987). Inferential beliefs in consumer evaluations: An assessment of alternative processing strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 363-371.
Gneezy, A., Gneezy, U., & Lauga, D. O. (2014). A reference-dependent model of the price-quality heuristic. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(2), 153-164.
Gunasti, K., & Ross Jr, W. T. (2010). How and when alphanumeric brand names affect consumer preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(6), 1177-1192.
Gupta, R., & Sen, S. (2013). The effect of evolving resource synergy beliefs on the intentions-behavior discrepancy in ethical consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(1), 114-121.
Houston, D. A., Sherman, S. J., & Baker, S. M. (1989). The influence of unique features and direction of comparison of preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25(2), 121-141.
Houston, D. A., Sherman, S. J., & Baker, S. M. (1991). Feature matching, unique features, and the dynamics of the choice process: Predecision conflict and postdecision satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27(5), 411-430.
Janiszewski, C., & Van Osselaer, S. M. (2000). A connectionist model of brand-quality associations. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(3), 331-350.
Leclerc, F., Schmitt, B. H., & Dubé, L. (1994). Foreign branding and its effects on product perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2), 263-270.
Lin, L., Hoegg, J., & Aquino, K. (2018). When Beauty Backfires: The Effects of Server Attractiveness on Consumer Taste Perceptions. Journal of Retailing, 94(3), 296-311.
Malaviya, P., & Sternthal, B. (2008). Parity product features can enhance or dilute brand evaluation: The influence of goal orientation and presentation format. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(1), 112-121.
Mittal, V., Kumar, P., & Tsiros, M. (1999). Attribute-level performance, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions over time: a consumption-system approach. The Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 88-101.
Nagpal, A., Khare, A., Chowdhury, T., Labrecque, L. I., & Pandit, A. (2011). The impact of the amount of available information on decision delay: The role of common features. Marketing Letters, 22(4), 405-421.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460-469.
Park, J., & Kim, K. (2010). The Effect of Common Features on Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option: The Moderating Role of Regulatory Focus. Journal of Global Academy of Marketing, 20(1), 89-97.
Porter, M. (2011). M. kramer (2011) Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62-77.
Raghubir, P. (1998). Coupon value: a signal for price?. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(3), 316-324.
Rao, A. R., & Monroe, K. B. (1989). The effect of price, brand name, and store name on buyers' perceptions of product quality: An integrative review. Journal of marketing Research, 26(3), 351-357.
Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 158-174.
Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 281.
Su, Y., Rao, L. L., Li, X., Wang, Y., & Li, S. (2012). From quality to quantity: The role of common features in consumer preference. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(6), 1043- 1058.
Troutman, C. M., & Shanteau, J. (1976). Do consumers evaluate products by adding or averaging attribute information?. Journal of Consumer Research, 3(2), 101-106.
Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79(4), 281.
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4), 327.
Van Osselaer, S. M., & Janiszewski, C. (2011). A goal-based model of product evaluation and choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 260-292.
Zhang, S., & Markman, A. B. (2001). Processing product unique features: Alignability and involvement in preference construction. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(1), 13-27.
